The engram commands we are using are as follows: “What part of that incident can you confront?”, “What part of that incident can you be responsible for?” and “What part of that incident can you confront? — for how long?” And when we have sorted these out, we run “Find an unimportant part of that incident.”

By incident, we mean both the overt and the motivator. An engram is some portion of an incident containing pain, unconsciousness and exteriorization. But the whole incident would consist of the overt-motivator which belong together; therefore we may find them running thousands of years apart, but, nevertheless, bundled up and identified with great thoroughness. We are running this simply with a kind of understood acknowledgment in most cases, and we are trying not to make this a sharp Tone 40 process, because that tends to drive the pictures away. (Some people are still doing this to a slight degree. Their acknowledgments are a bit too good and tend to make the engram vanish. This is a common thing.)

One thing we are faced with in this ACC is the inability of the student to accept the fact that a case changes. This must be stressed. Why are you auditing a case if you don’t expect it to change? These students go on auditing somebody day after day and actually downgrade the case again by giving it the same careful treatment throughout. They are careful, as if the preclear is still crazy. They haven’t noticed that the preclear is now doing pretty well. This leads to ARC breaks.

One more process which I haven’t mentioned so far is ARC Break Straightwire. We are not using it on the ACC, not because it isn’t good, but merely because it is lengthy. Dynamic Straightwire, cleverly done, takes a case apart. It starts almost any case. Selected Person Straightwire on Overts will bring up the responsibility of a case to a point where he can be trusted to run engrams; and ARC Break Straightwire is the one which lays open the track. The only trouble is, I have seen it run for fifty hours. It’s a long process, but it is a valuable process.

We have one final process here. It is a central process which processes anybody, and it is the thinking process of SCS. Now, to have the thinking process of SCS would be very valuable, because the assertion of control is your biggest point out. The reason auditors can’t audit and the reason cases can’t run and the reason valences happen, and so forth, has to do with handling people. Taking an old, old process here and remodeling it, we find that we have a very fast, wound-up-doll, muzzled auditing process that can kick the living daylights out of a case; and we are including the process in the 21st ACC.

The process is simply this: “Think of an identity you could handle. Think of an identity you couldn’t handle.” Or: “Think of an identity that could be handled. Think of an identity that could not be handled.” This is the SCS Control process, Thinking version.

It is not yet decided which of the auditing commands is the best. You can run the preclear either at cause or generally. The general process is “Think of an identity that could not be handled. Think of an identity that could be handled.” Run alternately, one command after the other, it probably undercuts the other process, which is “Think of an identity you could handle. Think of an identity you couldn’t handle.”

It sounds very bad to say “you couldn’t handle” — it is a negative process. That is why it has to be sandwiched in with a positive process. Strangely enough, it doesn’t totally run on the positive process, because the preclear has a private ambition — not to be handled. He doesn’t want to be controlled in any way. So you must run the negative process in on the other side of the positive process.

I can’t tell you at this stage how many cases this process can be run on. But I do know that it is the anatomy of cases in group one, for all my study of them so far shows that their greatest unreality is the unreality of control. They demonstrate a hectic attitude toward the preclear because of an anxiety about controlling him, or an apathetic attitude towards the preclear because they know they can’t control him.

The whole subject of valences finally shook out here on the 21 Ts ACC. I hasten to tell you about it. The preclears have been through arduous control on the whole track. Arslycus, where everybody got worked to death (produce, produce, produce, work, work, work . . .) — Space Opera, where control was nothing if not deadly — in fact, at every place on the track where everybody went haywire, they had to make a total effect on people. So the preclear who is having a bad time has as his central goal an individuality that cannot be controlled; and this is why most of these lower scale people want to be clear. They do not want to be not-controlled; they just want to be absent.

This is also the reason why some people, although they say they are willing to clear people, are really unwilling to do so; because a clear is someone you cannot handle the way they think of handling people. So they become unwilling to make somebody clear, and they will chop it up somewhere along the line. So there is a reasonable reason underlying this obsessive chop-up that some students do to a preclear, and a reasonable reason behind an auditor’s coming up to you with great unhappiness the moment his preclear starts to make a gain. He himself wants to be clear so that he cannot be handled, but, if he knows he can’t be clear, he adopts an identity that cannot be handled.

Various societies in various times have various things that cannot be handled, and they get stuck with these solutions, and it is almost a rational solution. They adopt an identity that cannot be handled — and that is what is sitting in the preclear’s chair. And sitting in the auditor’s chair is somebody who knows only too well that the preclear can never be handled and so it doesn’t matter what he does; or somebody who is determined to handle the preclear even if it means knocking his block off. This results in misemotional responses to handling the preclear.

This is one of those horrible simplicities.

We had processes long ago on identity and inventing identities and various types of identities, and we also had processes on handling people (“What could you handle?

What couldn’t you handle?” “What could you change? What couldn’t you change?” that sort of thing). Well, that all adds up to this process; and this process works much faster than SCS.

However, we shall know more about the Thinking version of SCS later on. I just wanted to give you a summary of the techniques and processes being used in the 21st ACC, for your information.